I was going to say. Not a current user ATM, but there are defiantly people with text+gzip SequenceFile(Text). It is nice to be able to work with those, I was also at a shop that went hard for AVRO + Impala but since switched off.
I also do not understand what is meant by "behind a query option" since the version of Impala I had (CDH 5+6) would process all the above formats. Edward On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Lars Volker <l...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: > I'm in favor of removing unsupported code, especially when doing so makes > development of the rest of the codebase easier and saves us cycles for > maintaining it. On the other hand it would suck if users had come to rely > on it and we break it, even though we recommend against it. > > We could make a reasonable effort to discover any users of the feature, > e.g. by asking on user@ and by folks on this list checking other > communication channels they might have access to. > > Cheers, Lars > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 8:26 AM Tim Armstrong > <tarmstr...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: > > > I don't think we need to bump a major version to remove something that we > > never claimed to support though. The docs are pretty clear: > > > > > > https://impala.apache.org/docs/build/html/topics/impala_ > allow_unsupported_formats.html > > > > "An obsolete query option from early work on support for file formats. Do > > not use. Might be removed in the future." > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:16 PM, Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com.invalid > > > > wrote: > > > > > As for the time zone case, I’d like to be careful about versioning. If > we > > > remove Avro, that seems like a breaking changedeserving of a major > > version > > > bump. > > > > > > It might be worth taking a survey wider than dev@. User@ or the > > customers > > > of Impala packagers might be good places to start. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 5:10 PM Tim Armstrong > > > <tarmstr...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > For a few years now we've had write support for Sequence, Avro and > > > > compressed text hidden behind a query option. We haven't really made > > any > > > > progress on turning it into a supported feature, so I'm wondering if > we > > > > should remove the code and save some overhead of building, testing > and > > > code > > > > maintenance. > > > > > > > > I know I've found it useful once or twice to generate test data but I > > > don't > > > > think this is enough to justify maintaining it. > > > > > > > > It seems like we should get it out of this in-between state - either > > > delete > > > > the code or get it to the point where it's supported and tested. If > we > > > > delete it, it's always possible for someone to resurrect it later. > > > > > > > > What do people think? > > > > > > > > - Tim > > > > > > > > > >
